WWE: Backlash 2009

I've been watching quite a lot of things, but haven't written much - though the number of drafts I have saved is getting a little silly. There will be more soon, including the rest of the Champion's Carnival, as it emerges, and some lucha.

I realised I didn't even write about Wrestlemania, mainly because I didn't have much to add. Taker vs. Michaels was an obvious highlight, but I'm not sold on it as being WWE match of the year, let alone anything more all-encompassing. First ten minutes are pretty standard stuff, and Michaels submission work is tedious. Everything from the dives onwards is fantastic though - a perfect count-out spot, and excellent selling through the finishers section. This was aided by both men having a number of big moves, but I don't want to take anything away from them here - the best possible version of these WWE clash of legends-type epics. The main event left a bad taste, and was a quite considerable waste of Orton's work and character development since, roughly, the summer of 2007.

But on to this show. Opener is a rematch of my current MOTY between Jack Swagger and Christian. It was another great match, and the best thing on the show. I didn't think it was as good as the TV match, but that was predictable as they were in the opener, but there were a few little bits that didn't click quite as well. That said, the elements that I loved about the title match were present here - like Swagger continuing to grow as a ring general and Christian's selling. Thought they ran out of steam a little bit at the end (and I couldn't reasonable attribute that to portraying fatigue), and the cheap finish is a bit unnecessary, though I understand why they feel the need to protect Swagger like that (maybe if he hadn't taken quite so many pinfalls in February they wouldn't need to). Swagger shows again he can control the middle section of a match with interesting work, setting up an exciting finish, as if he had been doing it for years.

I thought the thing that the Steamboat-Jericho match suffered from, for me at least, was being on the opposite end of the expectations game as before the Mania match. The surprise of how great (relatively) Steamboat looked there increased everyone's expectations and hype to the extent that you almost started to believe he was as good as he ever was. What is actually, objectively true is that Steamboat is an older man, but one who still knows how to put together a match. His offence isn't as crisp or as strong (though of all the 80s legends to wrestle nostalgia matches in this decade, no-one has looked better) but he can still sell like a champion. Watching him this last month has be great, and if this is his final run, it has been a fitting tribute - he's been involved in three really entertaining matches, and not looked out of place with much younger guys. I think we should be wary, however, of seeing them (particularly the two on pay-per-view) as much more than good, really well executed nostalgia matches, simply because others in his position has been so embarrassingly poor.

The Hardy's match was fine, and the ending was an interesting idea. I liked how they didn't go crazy with the TLC spots, instead saving one for the end. Matt's is great as a heel, continuing on a two year streak of being great. Michael Cole manages to come out with the stupidest line of the night when he said that there were no submissions in this match as the only way to win is to say "I Quit". Did you ever even watch Flair-Funk? CM Punk vs. Kane similarly was fine, with some smart arm work, and the double armed chokeslam at the end was maybe the best thing Kane has ever done in a wrestling match. Punk's ability to lose without ruining his push is a useful thing for the bookers, and he has entertaining matches with bigger guys - see his matches with Batista last year.

Main events take up nearly half the show. The six-man was well put together - opening face dominance, two distinct heat sections, hot tag and finisher spots is an established classic, and everyone was working hard (even HHH, who wasn't really in the match until the end, but who impressed with noticeable reactions to the ring action). Nobody (especially on commentary) remembers the 2000 six man tag for HHH title (with Rock, Taker and Kane on one side of the greatest mismatch in history), but this was thousands of times better. Orton is great - he's the best heel in the company (a company which currently employs Chris Jericho). His character is deranged, and vain, but not comically so. I loved the finish - the mistake that cost Trips the match wasn't goofy, they got a great nearfall out of the RKO, Orton looked fantastic lining up the punt, and even better grabbing the belt and marching off with it without even an acknoledgement to the crowd. If he doesn't keep that belt for a long run, they have missed yet another trick.

I thought the last man standing title match was good, but not great. Maybe these matches have been ruined for me by Jericho-HHH, which may still be one of my favourite matches of the decade, but for one thing, I expect at least some blood (I'm a sensible, mild-mannered 25 year old with two degrees from Oxford University, before you judge me). Wrestling grudge matches, especially ones with a violent tradition, need blood. It's not so much about being a gore-fan as much as supporting (in a long-established wrestling way) the story trying to be told. A near thirty minute match, where both guys are trying to render the other unconcious definitely requires something more than the usual main even finishers exchange and announce desk bump. The spotlight stunt finish, while visually shocking, also doesn't sit particularly well with me. It's too overgimmicked and special-effects driven for me. Basically, I thought there was a lack of balance and build - instead of increasingly violent near-finishes culminating in one final can't-top-this-spot, there was WWE main event near-finishes, culminating with an angle.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the match, nor the performances of both men within those limitations. First of all, I was shocked to find it was a thirty minute match. Secondly, the ten-counts were well-worked - the flipside of them not going particularly violent for most of the match was that they could credibly do regular ten-count spots without it seeming like overkill. Thirdly, Cena is pretty much the only guy I've enjoyed watching Edge go against in a year. It's entirely intangible, but in there with Cena, Edge seems like a main-eventer. Against any other top name, he's always seemed out of place.

Great show, overall - nothing bad, plenty of entertainment and variety and a few surprises, which is exactly what I watch WWE shows for, and which, when they get it right, they can do better than anyone else.